With pure number crunching is V8 (and the javascript function optimizer) faster than Tracemonkey -> http://united-coders.com/christian-harms/number...

Small audience, but the Sql Server Reporting Services reports that require a lot of client side crunching run DRAMATICALLY faster in Chrome than they do in IE. That's because all that number crunching is being done in javascript. So, there you go, real world case for faster javascript engines

You guys may have missed the point. Google created Chrome because there are limits to whats possible with just Javascript & html in our current browsers.

The efforts to speed up Javascript aren't about making pages load 1/2 a second faster. Its about opening the door to a whole new generation of Javascript applications that are just not possible today.

Unfortunately, there isn't a "next generation" open standard to replace Javascript. Microsoft and Adobe are knocking at the door with proprietary solutions. So, I am glad that some companies are spending some $$$ to Javascript in the running.

P.S. Javascript isn't really an "open standard" but it's cousin, ECMAScript is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECMAScript

I'm much more looking forward to seeing a KPart and a WebKit release that'll let me use WebKit and a 64-bit capable version of SquirrelFish Extreme with Konqueror 4.x.

For those who don't already know, Konqueror is KDE's browser and it currently uses KHTML from which WebKit was forked. SquirrelFish Extreme is WebKit's new native-JIT javascript engine... but they haven't implemented the x86_64 version of the JIT yet.

As it is, Konqueror is very nice but it has three little shortcomings:
1. Web developers usually test against Trident (Intenet Explorer), Presto (Opera), Gecko, and WebKit but not KHTML, so it's a game of catch-up to stay fully compatible with things like Google Reader.
2. KJS is noticeably slower than the other JS engines.
3. The extension API for Konqueror 3.x is a poorly-documented C++ interface while 4.x should soon support a generic API called Kross for extending apps using the language of your choice. (Python, in my case)

@Alec:
Fair enough.

If you're a developer, read the bechmarks and enjoy yourself.

If you're just a "normal" (meaning: not developer) Firefox user, this isn't for you and the performance changes wont matter to you because next week some other browser team will say the same thing: "Oh, no! We are the fastest!" and so on and so forth.

It's getting tiresome, let me tell you.

@Leo: I did read your entire comment. I'm here to disagree: I don't believe that the 'benchmarks are crap', as you put it. I think it's awfully dismissive to the engineering that goes into increasing rendering speeds.

I don't think that those benchmarks are useful to the average user by any means, for that same reason that over 40% of the browser market share still uses IE6 or below (god save us).

The problem is that too many people look at these things in terms of "what's right for the consumer". In that sense, yes the benchmarks only offer obscure and irrelevant information. But for those who like to develop webapps, it's interesting to see what direction the browsers are going in and to encourage this race to continue.

@Alec: No, I used Safari, Opera, IE7, Chrome and Firefox. And in my usage, Firefox is fast, but so is Chrome, and so is Safari. IE isn't. But that's not my point.

My point was that all this benchmarks are crap. I suggest you read all the comments before responding.

@Leo: Actually, I can tell a huge difference in webpage rendering speeds. But hey, doesn't sound like these issues concern you. I suggest you stick to Internet Explorer; that browser was designed for an attitude such as yours.

yes chrome is fast but only for Google applications like gmail or Orkut. Otherwise it sucks..

I certainly don't care what any graph or review pundit says. There is no doubt in my mind that Chrome is faster for certain types of pages, and *absolutely* faster to start (although that might be due to add-ons & other non-native detritus).

I use FedEx.com a lot for my business, and it's simply no comparison. Chrome is so much faster that going back to FF seems like someone just dialed back the clock on my processor.

All of that being said, there are still many things I prefer FF for, and will probably end up using all three browsers until someone gets it 100% right. It kills me that there are still sites that require IE, but that's what I have to put up with. Luckily, it seems to be fewer and fewer these days.

Mitch, as @Leo says, this isn't a rage against you, it's simply my user experience over the last week or so. Graphs mean little when the proof is so clearly in my pudding. :-)

I'm getting sick of this comparisons.

Now Apple will say that Safari is faster. Then Microsoft will say IE8 is faster. Then Firefox makes a comparison with Google Chrome wich nobody uses anyway except us, the "entusiasts".

Who cares?

Are you noticing anything different in your rendering speed? Because I don't, no matter what crappy or "marvelous" browser I'm using, it's all the same crap.

"Oh, it's a milisecond faster!"

SHUT THE F**K UP!

(This isn't about you, Mitch, it's about the people how make the graphs, just to be clear ;)